(Phys.org)—Questioning thoughts arise from a bracing study from Norway. The electric car might be a trade-in of an old set of pollution problems for a new set. Thanks but no thanks to a misguided cadre selling on the green revolution. Electric cars will eventually be one more pollutant source to campaign over. The study, "Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles," appears in the Journal of Industrial Ecology. Researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology declared in the study that "EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain."

The "supply chain" part of the statement is key to the focus of their research. The electric car has been promoted heavily as a car for the future but quick takes on EVs as environmental vehicles of choice should be replaced with longer and careful looks, even oversight, at what occurs during the entire cradle-to-gate life cycle of a car's production, use, and dismantling.

Light-duty vehicles account for approximately 10 percent of global energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and policy makers have braced themselves for what that means in climate change and air quality. In the Norwegian study, the authors looked at conventional and electric vehicles to see how all phases, from production to use to dismantling, affect the environment. They concluded that, "Although EVs are an important technological breakthrough with substantial potential environmental benefits, these cannot be harnessed everywhere and in every condition. Our results clearly indicate that it is counterproductive to promote EVs in areas where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal, or even heavy oil combustion."

The authors warned that the "elimination of tailpipe emissions at the expense of increased emissions in the vehicle and electricity production chains" carries risks for policy makers and stakeholders. The authors support serious attention to "life cycle" thinking. Their research was partly funded by the Norwegian Research Council under the E-Car Project

Earlier this year, reports of a study of vehicle types in China concluded that electric cars have an overall impact on pollution that could be more harmful to health than conventional vehicles. The researchers in that study examined pollution in 34 Chinese cities and they found that the electricity generated by power stations to drive electric vehicles led to more fine particle emissions than petrol-powered transport. They analyzed five vehicle types—gasoline and diesel cars, diesel buses, e-bikes and e-cars.

AbstractElectric vehicles (EVs) coupled with low-carbon electricity sources offer the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions from personal transportation. In considering these benefits, it is important to address concerns of problem-shifting. In addition, while many studies have focused on the use phase in comparing transportation options, vehicle production is also significant when comparing conventional and EVs. We develop and provide a transparent life cycle inventory of conventional and electric vehicles and apply our inventory to assess conventional and EVs over a range of impact categories. We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km. However, EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain. Results are sensitive to assumptions regarding electricity source, use phase energy consumption, vehicle lifetime, and battery replacement schedules. Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle. Improving the environmental profile of EVs requires engagement around reducing vehicle production supply chain impacts and promoting clean electricity sources in decision making regarding electricity infrastructure.

Related Stories

Electric cars have been heralded as environmentally friendly, but findings from University of Tennessee, Knoxville, researchers show that electric cars in China have an overall impact on pollution that could be more harmful ...

Apparently, location, location, location is the latest twist on electric vehicles and the environment: Whether an electric car such as the Nissan Leaf protects the atmosphere from greenhouse gases depends on where it's charged, ...

The Obama administration has set a goal of getting one million electric cars on the road by 2015 to reduce air pollution and dependence on fossil fuels. These vehicles are becoming available, but will Americans buy them? ...

Recommended for you

The Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) have launched the Clean Energy Incubator Network. The program, funded by the Energy Department, aims to ...

Manufacturers of battery electric vehicles, or BEVs, have increased their offerings in response to rising consumer concerns over gas prices and the environment. Drivers have been slow to adopt BEVs due to ...

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has unveiled an interactive infographic that tracks the number and history of nuclear weapons in the nine nuclear weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, C ...

About 15 million wood-fired stoves and combustion systems exist in Germany, including central-heating boilers for apartment houses. They are subject to strict clean air regulations. New wood-fired boilers ...

If Marc Secanell Gallart had his way, the streets would be filled with hydrogen-fuelled vehicles. The technology already exists, and has for some time, says the director of the University of Alberta's Energy Systems Design ...

User comments : 121

it is counterproductive to promote EVs in areas where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal, or even heavy oil combustion

Well, duh.

Just going for EVs isn't the answer (and I don't think anyone ever pretended it was). Going for alternative energy sources AND EVs is.EVs give you the chance to go renewable. The old gas guzzlers don't.

A 1200 cc four cylinder petrol engine in a lightweight small sedan. That's the solution.I'm Pontificating and teasing. On a slightly more serious note though.Engineers have now designed such small capacity motors producing up to ten times more power using less fuel than used to be the case. In the 1950's already, European motor manufacturers made such motors which could take racing cars to over 200 Kph. At the time the technology was too complicated to mass produce but that is not so any more. There is a lot of space for further improvement and the technology is already available. Of course, those people who drive around Cape Town in their Range Rovers, Maserati, Jaguars and V12 Mercedes Benz behemoths don't give a damn how much fuel they use. That is a huge part of the pollution problem all over the world. The will to change.

The number of people buying cars all over the world is going to explode when third world countries start catching up (in Asia this is already happening. In India it's about to happen, and in Africa it's just a matter of time). 3 billion more drivers? There's just no way you can get THAT efficient with a gas engine to still save the climate.

Environmental Progressive Nut Jobs will destroy the earth. I have said for a long time the EV's are worse for the environment than gas engines. I have been scolded by Environmentalists for saying it.

I believe the ICE should go, I think eventually it will be replaced by fuel cells. Once fuel cells become competitive with ICE, I would be glad to replace my vehicles. Till then, keep your expensive, government approved, environmentally dangerous vehicles to yourself, and quite forcing me to subsidise your folly, by asking for tax breaks.

Why? Most gasoline and diesel cars are used twice that long. Not necessarily by the same owner, but there's a massive market for second hand cars, and half the driving population depends on it to even afford cars.

Or is it because electric cars can't be used any longer without expensive battery replacements?

Our results clearly indicate that it is counterproductive to promote EVs in areas where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal, or even heavy oil combustion.

Obvious conclusion is obvious.

Of course electrical cars need clean energy sources to be worthwhile. That's why we need to continue boosting photovoltaics as much as possible. The batteries of electric cars can be used to provide storage capacity for the grid. Solar panels and electric vehicles are a match made in heaven!

it is counterproductive to promote EVs in areas where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal, or even heavy oil combustion

Well, duh.

Just going for EVs isn't the answer (and I don't think anyone ever pretended it was). Going for alternative energy sources AND EVs is.EVs give you the chance to go renewable. The old gas guzzlers don't.

Actually, I disagree somewhat. Renewable energy CAN be used to convert carbon from plants to liquid hydrocarbons that are compatible with current gasoline burning cars. Note that lots of plants convert CO2 into Carbon based compounds using sunlight with somewhere around 10% efficiency, whereas harvesting the plants directly for energy gives about 1%. It goes like this:

energy -> steam plus biomass -> (CO and H2) -> synfuel.

The energy can come from any source. I am not saying this is best, but it is a reasonable approach.

The real problem is that people are lazy, nothing real will happen until the pain is grave enough to overcome this. That means when the price of crude oil soars to extremes real attention will be given. Now all the stored energy we have on earth comes from the sun, when the storage becomes near depleted we'll have to go to the source or energy, our famous home star. I wouldn't mind seing some new ideas as how this could be acomplished on a grand scale. We have petrolium, PV cells, wind generators, water wave generators. what else is or almost possible at this point?

Most EV's will be charged by wasted power now not being used overnight or by filling in the demand dips in the day. Utilities in the US say they can charge a large % of the US car fleet this way.

What wasted power?

Nighttime electricity is cheaper because utilities want to sell more of it, and shift things like heating and cooling and pumping loads out of the daytime consumption - not because it would go to waste otherwise.

Most EV's will be charged by wasted power now not being used overnight or by filling in the demand dips in the day.

What wasted power? Fossil-fueled turbines must of course spin to turn the generators. But any load on the generator causes a "counter electromotive force" (Google it) requiring more torque to turn the generator and thus a greater input power requirement. A generator not under heavy load during the night is hardly consuming anywhere near the input power it requires during the day. There is no free lunch here.

Lots of noise, but the shift will come when there is an unambiguously better solution. Right now I expect that fuel cells with organic catalysts will be the way to go. But what do you put in the tank? Hydrogen has lots of storage issues. My guess is that methyl (wood) alcohol or a methyl/ethyl alcohol mix will be the eventual best choice for fueling fuel cells. The cells have to be a little more complex than hydrogen fuel cells, but the reduced fuel distribution and storage costs (including in vehicle storage) will make alcohol the winner.

And of course, the easiest way to make methyl alcohol is the destructive distillation of wood. You can also use bacterial digestors to turn organic waste to methane, then turn the methane into methanol, or even use coal, if you must.

In Asia, India and southern Europe, the motor scooter and motorcycle are the vehicles of choice when transportation of 1-2 people is required. It is most often in these countries that the family car is used mostly for transporting family members, the elderly and those who are incapacitated. Otherwise, the family car sits at home, whether they are electric or gasoline-powered, unless nothing else is available. While motor scooters and motorcycles use gasoline, eventually they will also be run by PV or gas alternately when equipped with PV cells and a light-weight battery to absorb sunlight. Except for inclement weather or family transport, there is no reason why a heavy vehicle, whether gas or battery powered should be used instead of a much lighter weight 2 or 3-wheeled vehicle.But a full tank of gas on a m.c. or a scooter will still take the driver and passenger a lot further distance than a EV running on battery alone. Switching to gasoline defeats the purpose of driving an EV.

While that is possible it's rather inefficient. CO2 is a very stable molecule and it takes a lot of energy to split it (it's no coincidence it is the end product of the respiration cycle).While this method does provide liquid fuels there are other problems, besides CO2, when it comes to burning gas. The burn porcess is never 100% clean. you always get an amount of NOx, CO and other baddies.These aren't as relevant from a climate standpoint but they are relevant from a health standpoint (especially where cars are very concentrated - like in cities).

So I trend to disagree that this is a reasonable approach. Maybe for trucking/shipping purposes where EVs just don't have the energy/weight ratio needed, yet.

I've seen a video on how they were oxidising aluminum grains in water and a catalyst to get H2. Very clever. I wonder how much polution is produced when they deoxidize it though ^^. Water and aluminum seem like a very safe way to transport energy.

I would suggest that the chief problem is neither the car nor the power source. It is our ridiculous growing desire to daily travel needlessly long distances. These efficiency gains often result in a rebound effect, or Jevon's Paradox, which is even more destructive when the advertised efficiency gains are indeed illusory.

Nature has evolved great energy storage - hydrocarbons: fats (oil), sugar/starch, or in a few cases alcohol.Fuels cells will improve until they are cost effective and can run directly on hydrocarbons (although this may take decades), with a fuel cell capable of propelling a car at highway speed supplemented by a small battery (capacitor, etc.) for burst power when passing.The hydrocarbon fuel will eventually be produced primarily from solar energy, either photochemical or produced from solar electricity (with fertilizing oceans being a wild card), using atmospheric carbon rather than fossil fuels. Solar is falling in price fast enough, and making oil while the sun shines takes care of energy storage for solar as well.Thus we will have electric cars with great range because the energy is stored as hydrocarbons, but with relatively small fuel cells that eliminate the tailpipe pollution other than CO2, with the CO2 being recycled to generated the fuel as a way to store solar energy.

Remember the "bumper cars" at your local amusement park? They were connected to "the grid" all the time and without electricity they would not move. There once were electric trolleys or buses way back when, but the oil cos. killed them off, didn't they?

There was an article which explained how electric cars and roads of the future would be connected to each other by a strip of electrical wiring embedded in the road(s) that would provide power to the cars by means of a device embedded probably on the underside of each car that would charge the car battery with a continuous supply of power. The charging system would have to be a nation-wide effort, of course, and either a tax or electric bill would have to be imposed for each car that uses such a system. I like the idea b/c it still would not restrict big trucks running on gasoline, etc from using the roads, but trucks should have their own lane(s) in any case.There would be no need for hybrids since only electricity would be used.

Norwegians study against alternative technology? I smell rats, oily rats here. Norway is a country based on oil industry. Go figure.

-nanotech_republic

Norway is a Socialist country, and as such, is extremely concerned about the health of its workers. No work due to illness > no pay > no income taxes paid to the welfare state. Big chunks of everyone's paycheck goes for income taxes in Norway, so that any alternative power source would have to be in compliance with the health and safety needs of the gainfully employed citizens. Gasoline and oil is more reliable in a northern country that doesn't have enough sunlight in winter for solar power projects. I wouldn't condemn Norway just b/c they have so much oil that they can use. They are looking for alternatives that are far less dangerous to health and well-being, but in the meantime they have to use whatever is available.

A study like this needs to be done on california where many vehicles are discarded long before thier usefull service life is over because they do not pass some of the most strict smog standards in the world. The amount of pollution generated recycling all those vehicles more than likely excedes what would have been generated by leaving them in service longer. A balance needs to be found and radical policys only cause more proplems.

Original poster is correct. EVs give you the chance to remove the energy source out of the car into more manageable sources. If those are made renewable, everyone wins. I'm always shocked to see that people assume EVs have to be recharged. How about swapping batteries like you swap your rhino light propane tank ?

This is nonsense: the first diesel engines (by Rudolph Diesel in 1894) were invented to run on hempseed oil; petroleum wasn't synthesized to mimic hempseed oil for over a decade. Therefore hempseed oil was the primary fuel for automobiles for over 30 years after the invention of the first internal combustion engine.

Electric cars will eventually be one more pollutant source to campaign over

This is what I always presented here. And I was always downovoted with green brains who are separated from economical reality for it heavily. Not surprisingly they were usually a proponents of mainstream "science" lobby: these trolls not only have no elementary economical feeling, because their whole life style is payed from mandatory fees. But the main reason of their "green optimism" is in the fact, the research of these blind economical alleys is what gives them jobs and salaries - they're essentially a cheaters.

IMO the global economical "strategy" of human civilization is quite clear today: all solutions, which are providing the job and salary for some group of unscrupulous individuals are checked first, before we adopt the really effective solutions, which could threat the jobs and social carriers of these less or more consciouses parasites. This macro-economical trend is so apparent and widespread, that the ignorance of cold fusion is only the most visible top of iceberg here. The principle of human society is, every group of people is fucking the rest, until the money are going and it's called a capitalism. The driving force of this global Ponzi scheme is the fact, that the global consequences of the local parasitism always appear with delay and in diluted form, so they're not so apparent with the rest of society. This society gets gradually boiled in its own parasitism and its ignorance like the frog in the warm watter, until some global war conflict will not interrupt for a while.

Just for the record: the dense particle model of the Universe is ignored from the same reason: the gravity and dark matter effects of each massive body can be interpreted like the cumulative shielding of (longitudinal) energy waves with all neighboring massive bodies. But because it manifests just with subtle gradient of CMBR noise, nobody cares about global mechanisms and only the low-dimensional peer-to-peer deterministic interactions are analyzed here. The better macroeconomical understanding of human society would therefore lead even to better understanding of emergent reality and vice-versa. If we wouldn't adopt the holistic macroscopic thinking, then the human civilization would be crushed periodically with global nuclear wars, which are working with the very same mechanism, like the occasional explosions of supernovas.

all solutions, which are providing the job and salary for some group of unscrupulous individuals are checked first,

This is called socialism.

Capitalists create the wealth people are persuaded to buy with money earned from the jobs created by the capitalists, not the state socialists.State socialists can only plunder wealth and redistribute to those dependent upon them for their existence, like unions.

A study like this needs to be done on california where many vehicles are discarded long before thier usefull service life is over because they do not pass some of the most strict smog standards in the world. The amount of pollution generated recycling all those vehicles more than likely excedes what would have been generated by leaving them in service longer. A balance needs to be found and radical policys only cause more proplems.

I don't know about radical policies, but it would be handy if consumers had a better idea of the cradle to grave costs of the specific models of cars they buy and drive. It would be helpful if we had a better understanding on when in the auto life cycle it not only makes economic sense, but ecological sense to upgrade to a newer model. I expect that eventually this data will become a resource for consumers.

This is called socialism. Capitalists create the wealth people are persuaded to buy with money earned from the jobs created by the capitalists, not the state socialists.

The capitalism and socialism are quite equivalent systems from this perspective. In socialism just the most influential category of people, who are fucking the rest is called the politbyro and they're fucking the working class - whereas in capitalism they're called an entrepreneurs and they're fucking their customers. It's no secret, that the difference between largest socialistic country (i.e. the China) and the largest capitalistic country is getting infinitesimal. But both these systems will get screwed in the same way, when they will growth above certain size and density, which will slow down the speed of macroeconomical feedbacks.

Peanut oil was first used by Diesel.

Later, George Schlichten invented a hemp 'decorticating' machine. Henry Ford demonstrated that cars can run on hemp.

whereas in capitalism they're called an entrepreneurs and they're *** their customers.

Only if the govt or the customer lets them.Entrepreneurs must persuade you to buy their stuff. And unless the socialist govt limits competition, other entrepreneurs can try to persuade you to buy their stuff.

It sounds like T just doesn't like living in world governed by the laws of physics, upon which economic laws are based. I bet T believes hemp isn't used because of some corporate conspiracy, but the laws of physics enter in. Petroleum is more energy dense and costs less to produce and does not compete with food, human energy.

Some FYIs for all those ungrateful one-eyed rightwing hypocrites. If it wasn't for socialistic system of patents and laws, both these would be in the hands of a few monopolies and you would be screwed along with everybody else. If it wasn't for socialistic police/fire depts, then screw you if you couldn't afford to pay. If it wasn't for the socialistic "green movement' over the last century, you and your children would now be living in sewerage and breathing poisonous air and eating chemically poisoned food (much much worse than now); and if seriously/chronically ill, begging a doctor to see you IF you could afford it without selling your house (which the republicans/conserves want for all the poor). Whatever the problems you think socialism and green movement may have, you would have greater problems if they were not there. And as for capitalists improving things, it was socialistic laws/actions led increase engine/car mileage/safety, and which saved capitalist industries in GFC. :)

@RealityCheck Some FYIs for all those ungrateful one-eyed rightwing hypocrites.

Don't mind ryggesogn2 it's either a copy 'n paste bot or the autistic outcast love child of some alcoholic Norwegian socialists. Think Man Coulter the she devil raised by hippies, now fixated on conservative insect politics. When the world is chock full of ryggesogn2s, reason will not save the day. The plug will need to be pulled.

@ValeriaT The capitalism and socialism are quite equivalent systems from this perspective.

Yes they are both systems of war when a measure of peace must reign. When banksters and debtor governments feel themselves at an impasse they declare outright bloodshed. We see this with the bankster's direct support of the Golden Dawn fascists in Greece, as austerity is always a prelude to war. Other times the bloodshed is just as pervasive but much better hidden in the statistics of disease, illiteracy, premature aging, domestic and street violence and a general environment of fear, hostility and suspicion in society.

Peace can only reign in a atmosphere of justice. When the only function of the state is to prevent injustice then the state can't plunder the wealth earned by individuals.What is happening in Greece and across Europe is the result of decades of injustice that has led to their govts running out of other people's money.Somehow the Ehrlich socialists are so worried about running out of natural resources but don't seem to be too worried about govts running out of other people's money. Is it because they don't really understand that money represents wealth and that they don't really understand what wealth is?

"richer northern countries like Germany, Finland and Austria complain that their comparative wealth and success are being drained to keep countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain afloat. "http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0

"richer northern countries like Germany, Finland and Austria complain that their comparative wealth and success are being drained to keep countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain afloat. "http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0

Yes and the same thing happens in the US, only it is the blue state carring the red states.

Monopolies can only exist when a socialist govt uses its force to prevent competitors from entering the market.

Re-write history much? Capitalist successes like John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt and many others often used various methods to destroy any competition - because laws didn't exist to prevent them from doing so. It was said of J. D. Rockefeller that more laws were created because of him than any other person in history. The industrialization of many nations is fraught with thuggish abuse from their own icons.

No growth of a nation is without its own struggles and abuses along the way. In my opinion capitalism is a great system to encourage growth and the distribution of wealth. But, it only works when governments force industries to play well with each other and ensure their employees are fairly compensated and safe. Prior to such laws competition was stifled and employees were little more than disposable serfs.

Capitalist successes like John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt and many others often used various methods to destroy any competition

They would out compete, make a better product at a better price.

"Ida Tarbell, in contrast to Sinclair, concentrated on nonfiction. Her major work, growing out of her own father's failure in the oil business, was a 1904 two-volume account of John D. Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Company. It was a formative factor in stereotyping him as a ruthless, ice-hearted skinflint who undercut his competitors for the long-range purpose of driving up prices to consumers.

The reality is that Rockefeller was obsessed with efficiency and innovation. He not only squeezed more kerosene out of petroleum than other refiners but ingeniously recycled by-products into salable goods. Prices plummeted. " {How horrible!}http://www.mackinac.org/4509

"At the peak of Rockefeller's market domination in 1899 the price of kerosene had dropped from 1870's 26 cents per gallon to less than 6 cents per gallon. But markets quickly change. Kerosene gave way to electricity for lighting, and petroleum displayed explosive potential as fuel for the newfangled horseless carriage. Nimble competitors came in and whittled away Rockefeller's market share. "" In industry after industry, Kolko demonstrated, businesses that tried to "monopolize" markets were thwarted by the fierce winds of competition. Agreements between certain businesses to reduce output and raise prices fell apart as quickly as it took for the ink to dry because once those agreements were made on paper, those individuals who made them stood to make more profit by breaking them than by adhering to them. "http://www.mackinac.org/4509

"Kolko reveals that: "The reality of the matter, of course, is that the big packers were warm friends of regulation, especially when it primarily affected their innumerable small competitors."

Remember how Andrew Carnegie and the big trusts were converging on monopoly until Roosevelt busted them? Kolko sets the record straight: "that it was not the existence of monopoly that caused the federal government to intervene in the economy, but the lack of it."

Kolko reports that steel cartels always fell apart, as the temptation of lower prices always shattered them. "Having failed in the realm of economics," Kolko writes, "the efforts of the United States Steel group were to be shifted to politics." Andrew Carnegie called for "government control" of steel prices."http://www.weekly...644.html

"richer northern countries like Germany, Finland and Austria complain that their comparative wealth and success are being drained to keep countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain afloat. "http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0

Yes and the same thing happens in the US, only it is the blue state carring the red states.

States like SD don't guarantee retirement at age 50 for certain occupations like Greece does (or did). And when the federal govt is in charge of rivers, dams and reservations, SD may get more per capita since there are few people and one big river, the Missouri with 4 dams in SD alone. And don't forget the major Sioux reservations, Badlands National Park, Mt. Rushmore, Elsworth AFB and nuclear missile silos.

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

Of course these stats are skewed by the federal govts control of property in many of these states with low population.Any state that has a large share of federal govt land holdings or is dependent upon US govt agencies receive federal money to help fund schools which are usually dependent upon property taxes, which are NOT paid by the federal govt to local govts.A company like Raytheon in Tucson is funded with govt contracts and most of their property is owned by the USAF. So the federal govt sends some money to the local schools due to its impact on local property taxes. And don't forget MOST of AZ is owned by the federal govt.

"It is not only that our EU partners are angry about our lying to them (and to ourselves) about the state of our finances, nor is it only that they will have to help us politically or economically (or both), but there is also the rather damning fact that in many aspects the Greeks enjoy a more privileged life than their German partners in the EU. Through all this borrowing, Greek salaries and pensions rose far above (about 30 percent) Greek productivity. This means that even if salaries in many cases (though not all) were still lower than the German equivalent, pensions were higher, and usually paid at an earlier age. So there is no longer a feeling of the richer EU countries helping their poorer partners – Greece's mess comes across as exploitation of the underprivileged by the pampered."http://www.econom...pensions

Red states are TAKEN by the federal govt, P. The FEDS own much of the Red States property.

"In 1885, John D. Rockefeller wrote one of his partners, "Let the good work go on. We must ever remember we are refining oil for the poor man and he must have it cheap and good." ""his Standard Oil Company had already captured 90 per cent of America's oil refining and had pushed the price down from 58 cents to eight cents a gallon. His well-groomed horses delivered blue barrels of oil throughout America's cities and were already symbols of excellence and efficiency.""Some of the oil producers were unhappy, but American consumers were pleased that Rockefeller was selling cheap oil""During the 1870s, the price of kerosene dropped from 26 to eight cents a gallon and Rockefeller captured about 90 per cent of the American market. This percentage remained steady for years. " {NOTHING TO DO WITH GOVT}http://www.thefre...ndustry/

"By 1907, four years before Standard Oil's breakup, the company's market share had fallen to 68%, partly because the rest of the oil industry had learned a lot from Standard about oil refining and efficiency. Rockefeller had not stopped competition — he had raised the bar by creating a modern, scientific oil company before anyone else did.

Read more: http://dailycalle...8e4C0HR0"Standard Oil had no monopoly. Like Apple, they made a product people wanted. Unlike Apple, Standard Oil made their product more efficiently and sold at a lower price than competitors.

Ever since the 'progressive' era, when a company can't compete it runs to the federal govt to punish their competitor. Sun did that to Microsoft and Clinton obliged.

The Standard Oil Company was really good at gouging a few decades later.

"The process of distilling crude oil/petroleum into kerosene, as well as other hydrocarbon compounds, was first written about in the mid-800s by the Persian scholar R?zi. In 1850, it sold for $0.03 cents per gallon."

The Standard Oil Company was really good at gouging a few decades later.

How could it? Wasn't it regulated by the govt?

" Bill Gates resisted the notion that a software company needed to hire a lot of lobbyists and lawyers. He didn't want anything special from the government, except the freedom to build and sell software. If the government would leave him alone, he would leave the government alone.Ultimately, there even was a feeling that, in refusing to play the Washington game, Microsoft was being downright unpatriotic. Look, buddy, there is an American way of doing things, and that American way includes hiring lobbyists, paying lawyers vast sums by the hour, throwing lavish parties for politicians, aides, journalists and so on."

The Standard Oil Company was really good at gouging a few decades later.

"The process of distilling crude oil/petroleum into kerosene, as well as other hydrocarbon compounds, was first written about in the mid-800s by the Persian scholar R?zi. In 1850, it sold for $0.03 cents per gallon."

The Standard Oil Company was really good at gouging a few decades later.

"The process of distilling crude oil/petroleum into kerosene, as well as other hydrocarbon compounds, was first written about in the mid-800s by the Persian scholar R?zi. In 1850, it sold for $0.03 cents per gallon."

The 15 cents a gallon gasoline included pumping your gas, washing your windshield and checking your oil! In 1950 dollars that was much cheaper than the 7 cents a gallon kerosene in the early 1900's. Thank goodness the Feds broke up the Standard Oil Co. 50 years earlier.

"In the early days, to get barrels of crude oil from assorted oil spots in northwest Pennsylvania onto railways headed for the refineries, oil was transported by horse and wagon by teamsters, often through roadless territory and waist-high mud, with barrels perpetually bouncing and frequently breaking or falling out. (Because of government intervention, the teamsters had a huge influence in politics and for years prevented the construction of local pipelines—an incomparably superior form of oil transportation.)16"" the spotty quality of much American kerosene is what inspired John Rockefeller to call his company Standard Oil.17""Tarbell's exalted "independent refiners" from the Oil Regions of Pennsylvania, incidentally, produced the worst quality kerosene."" In 1865, kerosene cost fifty-eight cents a gallon; by 1870, twenty-six cents.20""by 1880, Standard Oil was phenomenally profitable, and kerosene cost nine cents per gallon.6"http://www.theobj...008-summ

"If antitrust theory was correct, Standard's "control" of 90 percent of the oil refining market, should have made the 1880s its easiest, least-challenging decade—one in which it could coast, pick off competitor fleas with ease, and raise prices into the stratosphere.

In fact, the company struggled mightily in that decade to lower its prices even more—while facing its greatest competitive challenges (foreign and domestic), as well as a bedeviling technological challenge.""He proceeded to pump or purchase millions of barrels of the virtually useless oil, confident that with enough effort and science it would be possible to extract marketable kerosene and other products. "http://www.theobj...pany.asp

If you really want to know what happened there are sources. But most socialists can't admit how Rockefeller innovated, reduced costs and consumer prices and made a fortune. He DID build it!

The 15 cents a gallon gasoline included pumping your gas, washing your windshield and checking your oil! In 1950 dollars that was much cheaper than the 7 cents a gallon kerosene in the early 1900's. Thank goodness the Feds broke up the Standard Oil Co. 50 years earlier.

Gasoline was a by product of kerosene and was typically discarded. When the electric lamp cut into the kerosene market, Rockefeller found markets for the waste product, gasoline.

ryggesogn2. :) Your 'one-eye' makes a mess of reading history and the facts, doesn't it? The purpose of patents is to give LIMITED TIME 'state monopoly' to encourage and assist ordinary citizens with a worthy idea to have the wherewithal/opportunity to develop and market that idea for the benefit of both themselves AND society/nation. It prevents rich/monopolistic individuals/organizations from STEALING their ideas and screwing the public by controlling market/profit by monopoly power forever rather than limited monopoly/power which patents would have granted inventor. Laws were once the province of the Landowners/Barons/Squires which rode roughshod over their serfs/subjects. Hence Magna Charta and Democracy 'social compacts' with democratic rulers/govts. Get a clue; get 'another eye' to keep your existing 'one eye' company. The 'inconvenient' truth is that capitalists HYPOCRITES 'abhore socialistic systems' and etc, until it suits THEM. Subsidies & GFC bailouts etc etc , anyone? :)

Here you go again Rygg2, using a source with a political agenda to make a point that has little to do with which states receive more or less in the amount of taxes paid to and received from the Federal government. The link below shows exactly what percentage each state receives in dollars compared to what they paid into the Federal government in 2005. Have you checked out the link?

Laws were once the province of the Landowners/Barons/Squires which rode roughshod over their serfs/subjects.

Which motivated John Locke, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson and others leading to the Declaration of Independence and the USA.

And key idea of Locke, compared with Hobbs or Plato or Moore is that each human individual has inherent, unalienable rights to life, liberty and property that do NOT originate from the state or ANY other human being but Nature itself. The only legitimate function of the state and its laws are to protect the rights of every individual, equally. And this cannot mean equal outcomes as plunder the wealth from one to equalize outcomes violates the property rights of the plundered and subjects every individual to capricious plunder.

Bastiat discusses The Law quite succinctly for his day agreeing with Locke.

Here you go again Rygg2, using a source with a political agenda to make a point that has little to do with which states receive more or less in the amount of taxes paid to and received from the Federal government. The link below shows exactly what percentage each state receives in dollars compared to what they paid into the Federal government in 2005. Have you checked out the link?

Raw stats are meaningless without context. You are using the data to promote your agenda. Each state has unique features and cannot be simply ranked to promote your agenda.VA and MD are the two top recipients and they are adjacent to DC, which receives SIX times more federal money than it sends in. DC is very blue.

Real, you do know that Coca Cola recipe has not been patented and they have a legally protected trademark, which lasts until they sell it.Patent law is useless here. Do you believe Coke has a monopoly on its product? They are not sharing their recipe.

Get a clue Rygg2, the bluest of blue states pay more in federal taxes than what the receive from the federal government.For example NY and Ca receive only 79% of the taxes they pay into the federal government and NJ only 61%! Boy most of those red states are parasites!

Hi ryggesogn2. Still one-eyed? System of legal/economic & political rights is 'social compact'. No more; no less. Systems can be corrupted by 'unfettered communism' (no democracy, power-by-the-gun); and also by 'unfettered capitalism' (democracy, but "rights and profit opportunities" are FOR SALE to the highest bidder (count the money being spent in present US election campaigns!). Reasonable small "s" middle-of-the-road socialistic approach 'reasonably' evens out advantages/disadvantages so no money/power 'clique monopolies' get exploitative ascendency over govt or fellow citizens. And 'trademark' is only on name/image, not actual 'recipe'. You cannot patent a 'recipe' (be it a cake, a candy bar or a softdrink). Your continuing one-eyed view on the history/facts tells me you have a personal/political/mercenary agenda having nothing to do with evenhanded appreciation of the reality of social/economic/political matters either in principle or in common law. :)

How is a 'social compact' determined? Some members of society must be more equal than others? Or does the majority rule over the 49% enslaving them, or killing them or ...?Or does each individual have unalienable, inherent rights that must be protected equally for all? For if even one individual can be determined to have MORE rights to another individual, all rights are subject to capricious, arbitrary tyrants.

The "recipe" for Coca-Cola does not need to be patented, simply because it is "top secret" as to the ingredients and methodology. There is no monopoly as to other companies "TRYING" to simulate that particular brand's recipe...and failing. The government and Pepsi-Cola or Dr. Pepper cannot do anything to obtain and/or steal that one-of-a-kind recipe because it's kept under lock and key, and is not for sale to the highest bidder....no matter what price is offered. That is not to say that these other companies can't continue trying to discover the secret, but Coca-Cola Co. is still the best tasting, imo. Pepsi and others have their own formulas, so that they take a share of the market even though they can't seem to get the same taste as Coke. Consumers usually acquire a taste for their favorite flavor, anyway. But until and if Coca-Cola decides to sell their recipe, they will continue to be "top dog" in the soft drinks market. Their product is known the world over in spite of competition

"In 2008, Obama lost Georgia by 5 percentage points but he won 70% of voters who earned less than $30,000 -- which is precisely the demo most likely to owe no federal income tax. Obama lost Mississippi by 14 percentage points, but picked up 66% of voters who earned less than $30,000. As a general rule, Republicans win among richer voters -- both in the red states and the blue. "http://www.theatl.../262499/

So what Pee is really saying is that the blue states have majorities who pay little or no federal income tax and likely have a very wealthy minority who are crony 'capitalists' who benefit from govt regulations that protect them from competition.Does Pee support eliminating a solid majority middle class that pay federal income taxes or a majority in poverty, dependent upon welfare and a few ultra rich that pay the way, and expect then to get their way?

Consumers who are discerning and discriminating when it comes to food, drink, clothing, type of vehicle, and many other products have the last word on what they purchase and for how much. Competition between the companies who manufacture such products allows for producing better quality (or the BEST) that money can buy...in order to corner the market on such products and enjoy higher volumes of profit to pay for salaries and hiring, more raw ingredients, public relations (advertising), infrastructure, various taxes and health plans, and many other considerations. Monopolies in the old days didn't necessarily make a BETTER product; they had superior CEOs who knew EXACTLY what the consumers wanted, and were willing to produce and sell those products and make happy customers. But they also understood that consumers are fickle, and if the product didn't keep up with the times or the styles and appetites, the company would fail. Competitors were aware of that too, so they also tried harder

What I'm saying here, is that competition between companies, although mandated by Federal government, absolutely does NOT ENSURE a better (or BEST) product that consumers are willing to buy, even at low prices. The failure of the Volt to be the best hybrid made very UNhappy customers, and unhappy consumers take their money where they can also get the most happiness - whether it's food, soda pop, muscle cars, or whatever.

Henry Ford, J.D.Rockefeller, Thomas Edison, and hundreds of inventors all knew what the consumer wanted and what they were willing to pay for it. And they understood human psychology as it impacts consumerism. All the government mandates will not help competitors of any good, productive company if the competitors come up with crap that nobody wants. The government cannot FORCE consumers to buy a certain brand, unless there is only one product brand on the shelf in the market...the way it was in Soviet Russia. Russians either bought it or went hungry. No competition.

Competition is good for top market value, product quality, affordable prices, and consumer safety and satisfaction. But Federal government, as a proactive entity, has no need getting into consumer-business relationships, except to ensure that safety and health guidelines are followed, and that usury and corruption are eliminated.

"Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" authored by Ayn Rand explains the consumer/business relationships far better than I can. Europe and the U.S. have never experienced the full, unbridled uncorrupted Capitalism that could be the best thing that can happen in any country...and the world.

Instead, real Capitalism is pushed aside by those who believe that it is their "right" to take what was earned by hard-working individuals and give those earnings to the lazy bums of the world through "redistribution of wealth". When there is NO MORE wealth, those lazy bums will tear you apart and murder you in the streets in order to steal what you have...b/c IT IS THEIR RIGHT

How is a 'social compact' determined? Some members of society must be more equal than others? Or does the majority rule over the 49% enslaving them, or killing them or ...?Or does each individual have unalienable, inherent rights that must be protected equally for all? For if even one individual can be determined to have MORE rights to another individual, all rights are subject to capricious, arbitrary tyrants.

Norway is rather heavily trying to save up money, because they know their oil supplies will run out. They're diversifying their holdings (and with extremely good results, too). If anything Norway is the best prepared country in the world for the post-oil economy.

This is nonsense: the first diesel engines (by Rudolph Diesel in 1894) were invented to run on hempseed oil;petroleum wasn't synthesized to mimic hempseed oil for over a decade. Therefore hempseed oil was the primary fuel for automobiles

Biofuels aren't able to replace the massive amounts of fuel needed - not without serious problems fo the food market (especially in third world countries). The times have changed somewhat since 1894, you may have noticed.

The rest of the bickering in the comments section is really besides the point. Are you people all so small minded? Hello? There's a reality greater than human society (there's a whole planet -and a whole universe- out there). And it doesn't give a damn whether jobs are secure or wages are high or your next car costs more than your last one.

If we don't get our act together then there won't BE a humanity left. Anyone who thinks changing over to an ecologically sustainable model is still an issue that we have the luxury of deciding on economic terms is living in a fantasy world.

You do understand that Magna Carta only applied to the barons and NOT the serfs? It wasn't until Locke and the Declaration of Independence when 'the people' first had any chance to have their individual rights protected.

You do understand that Magna Carta only applied to the barons and NOT the serfs? It wasn't until Locke and the Declaration of Independence when 'the people' first had any chance to have their individual rights protected.

And democracy is mob rule.

Never said it wasn't. I quoted Magna Charta as part of a chain of events/rights from Divine/Absolute Rule" to a social system of self-rule by the people. Magna Charta was effectively the first 'link' in that chain, the "beginning" of acquring rights for other than 'divine kings' etc. Royal and other elite 'ruler' powers were beginning to erode from that point. The social evolution from that beginning led to modern democracy, separation of powers and common law rights etc etc. It resulted in what we see today where citizen's rights do not depend on who rules, but on Law (common and precedent) as well as voter/referenda affected govt regulation as times/needs change. :)

At least Obama can choose the US to build batteries... hey didn't Obama PICK a WINNER who was going to crank out 15000 batteries for the VOLT? Obama's great at picking winners and spending billions of dollars on these companies who then employ millions of Americans... RIGHT?????

looks like the debate over pollution here has been hijacked by some shill for big business who would have us live in some republican dream world of 'devine right' for the moneyed.

The Norwegian study assumed fossil fuel water boilin fresh air Otto cycle (Carnot) engines at 10% efficiency would be the bottom line energy production. The whole study is skewed in favor of hydrocarbon base load energy production. That situation is turned on its head when the production is mainly Nuclear Energy, as in France, and soon Iran as it breaks the monopoly on reactor fuel production to the consternation of the big nation cartel that controlled access to it and kept the price high.

He was referring to what is the case in a democracy. I think that notion hasn't applied to the US system since the 1950's (if that).

While the US has all the named organizations that a democracy is supposed to have the name alone is not enough. The organizations have all ceased to fulfill the functions that they are supposed to.The fourth power is a virtual monopoly with vested interests in political agendas. The judicial branch (supreme court judges) are appointed as political croniesThe executive branch is an "American Idol" show with no regard for ability whatsoever (just look at the past bunch of presidents - and especially the ones that lost out to those presidents in the race)The legislative branch isn't interested in legislation but merely in pandering to lobbyists and destroying the current president's term so that they can have the next one.

The USA was NEVER designed as a democracy. It was designed with a republican form of govt with attempts at balancing and limiting state power.But as the philosophers Locke and Montesquieu noted, such a govt needs leaders, and citizens, with virtue.The the Platonic, Hobbsian and Moore-ish Utopians have no such virtue and must be constantly fought. So far, they are winning the unproven and unprovable theory that some men or collection of men are more perfect than others to lead the 'betas' and 'gammas'.

Americans don't want another Obama term. When he became president, gas was under $2.00 a gal, the media was complaining that this was a rip off and that high gas prices was Bush's fault. Now it is over $5.00 a gal in california, which is where Obama wants gas prices to be. So if Bush wanted low gas prices and they went up, high gas prices are Bush's fault according to Progressives and the Progressive Main Stream Media, YET when gas prices hit the low end of what OBAMA wants, high gas prices are not his fault?

I give credit where credit is DUE. OBAMA wanted high gas prices, he set up policies to reach it, and he has accomplished it. High gas prices is one promise Obama kept.

"Over just the past six months, three refineries supplying about half the gasoline, diesel and jet fuel to the East Coast have closed, including two owned by Sunoco Inc. They say they simply cannot make money anymore.

Philadelphia-based Sunoco's refinery business in the Northeast has lost almost $1 billion over the past three years as U.S. demand for gas fell and the cost of foreign crude soared.

But over the same period, it had to shell out "significant expenditures for environmental projects and compliance activities" to satisfy onerous EPA mandates, according to the company's latest 10-K report.

That situation is turned on its head when the production is mainly Nuclear Energy, as in France, and soon Iran as it breaks the monopoly on reactor fuel production to the consternation of the big nation cartel that controlled access to it and kept the price high.

If Iran only wanted uranium enriched to the levels needed for nulear energy generation they would have enough purified fuel by now. Futher purification in large quantities is only for weapons grade fuel. In small quantities it is useful for research or medical applications. The last reports I've read several months ago is that they are enriching uranium in both purity and quantities that would only be useful for weapon development. If they had stopped at a purity of 20% or less and brought the IAEA in to verify this wouldn't be such an issue.

Hi ryggesogn2.You intrigue me as a case study in "one-eye-ism", mate! The price is $5.00, and they can't make a profit? How come, since costs are ALWAYS passed on to the consumer, no matter where the oil comes from or who refines/distributes the fuels? Do they want MORE profit, is that it? One-eyed!

DEMAND has fallen due GFC downturn in activity/spending. Who gave us this GFC. You guessed it, the HIGH-DEFICITt govt REPUBLICANS/conservatives who not only profiteered in making this GFC, but also profiteered from the misery it caused (firing americans, offshoring jobs/investment; then blaming those unemployed/poor they created!). One-eyed!

If it wasn't for socialistic environmental safeguards, mileage improvement requirements etc, you and your family would be wasting fuel, living in chemical sewerage, breathing through poison gas respirators and be nuclear/chemical waste mutants. So you put corporate profiteering ahead of your family's health etc? One-eyed, thrice! Strike three! :)

Who are 'they'?There are a lot of 'theys' in the process of getting gasoline to your tank.The only 'they' making a 'profit' is the govt with all its taxes up and down the supply chain.

The same "they" who ran the fuel import/refining, distribution before you started your one-eyed complaining about everything else but the facts I pointed out already, which you didn't address and went instead for the "they" gambit to evade. Whatever taxes are levied or exploration/GFC etc costs, ALL costs are ALWAYS passed on, so the corporate profit margin doesn't change much. If their infrastructure is getting old and expensive to maintain, it is hypocritical for them to blame anyone but themselves for being greedy and not making a sinking fund to replace/upgrade etc. The profits are there no matter what happens, it's the greed that is the problem....and the one-eyed excuses and blaming everyone else except themselves (and yourself? Are you in that industry?). Bye. :)

Ask your mate Mitt Romney. He and his capitalist mates want extra profit so they close down US plant and offshore the jobs/refining so they can make more profit just importing. Where have you been? That is what Bain Capital (ism) Modus Operandi was all about. One-eyed and 'conveniently forgetful', hey? Ask Romney to release the detailed Tax returns for his Bain Capital (ism) years and you will see why. He hasn't released them because they will answer all your questions. That's what you and Mitt are afraid of, isn't it, or he would have released them by now. Conmen are conning you again, and you fall for it every time. Gullible....or just one-eyed shill for that crowd? Mate, it's no use discussing anything with you if you are so blind to the facts and just keep posting your Repub/conserve 'unfettered capitalism' shill spiel. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". (Mark Twain?). Goodbye. :)

Hi ryggesogn2. Strawman. Who said it was any easier than any other big business? Anyway, fuel is a necessity, hence a guaranteed market. It is the profiteering and greed that ruins any industry. Where have you been? You sure don't seem to know much about what's what in big business ways of pretending to have small profits but raking in the dough from all the dodges in taxation and 'associate businesses' through which the extra money is siphoned off as 'expenditure' etc so it looks like they are not making profits. Why do you ignore that Mitt Romney and Bain Capital pals closed plants and offshored jobs and investments to make MORE profit at the cost of ruining american workers livelihoods and then blaming them for being poor and unemployed/homeless? Like I said. You are one-eyed and shilling, jumping from evading to strawmanning in one easy step. If you really are that gullible an american, no wonder these "Patriotic" conmen shear you again and again and again! Mark Twain was right! :)

So you've come to the end of your rehearsed shill-spiel and that's all you have to say when the reality is pointed out to you that makes you and your shill-spiel sound lame and gullible? And you pretend to have "the answers" for the world's woes! Now that is what is UN-real if ever there was! No more time to spend playing with gullible and/or one-eyed american shills/sheep. See ya round, mate...and enjoy the GFC and deficit and 'offshored economy' brought to you by Mitt Romney and his pals which Obama inherited! :)

How would you know? You are one-eyed, and the one pushing a shill-spiel reeking of gullibility and bias, as demonstrated. Fantasy is your conmen MO, and they're about to shear you again if you fall for their "patriotism" scam. They ruined the economy, created more poor/homeless, obstructed Obama's efforts to bring industry back to american shores etc, and you are here rooting for the very same mob who left you all in this mess in the first place? UNreal! Some of you yanks can be conned again and again and again....and still come back for more shearing by Repub/conserve "unfettered capitalism" 4 years later! Fantasy is not the word, mate. UNreal stupidity and/or calculated mercenary/political treason by "sham patriot" crooks, more like. Good luck! :)

Get ready to start walking and have a large portion of the population die off as agriculture fails and the JIT system dies. There is no way around it. The people in power should have seen this coming decades ago but the pursuit of money is too great. The world our children will live in will be very different from this one, and they will curse us for our greed.

The pursuit of money is the only way resources will be made available.When the USSR began starving, again, they 'allowed' people to sell the products they raised.Cuba has recently done same thing. 'Allowed' people to sell the produce they raised."For the first time in decades, farmers will also be allowed to take their products to market themselves. ""the reform will allow farmers to "develop mechanisms to supply tourist entities and take better advantage of the potential of all forms of local means of production". " {farmers know best, not the STATE}"the state-run system has led to high volumes of food rotting before it could be distributed. "http://www.bbc.co...15829737

The pursuit of money is the only way resources will be made available.

It doesn't work, when the natural resources are already close to depletion (and life environment full of waste). The frenetic work of people will just make the problem even deeper after then, because it consumes another resources like every human activity. Soon or later the new findings and paradigms must be used anyway.

You do know people are paid MONEY to recycle products that have value?

This is as naive assumption, as the belief that the money can replace the resources of energy and raw materials. Even the gold - which is most valuable and most recycled resource - is wasted in large quantities every year. You cannot beat the entropy with entropy: the effective recycling would require another energetic and material resources. And of course, the money which are paid to recycling will be missing somewhere else. The only solution is to use a new technology, like the cold fusion.

Cuba has recently done same thing. 'Allowed' people to sell the produce they raised."For the first time in decades, farmers will also be allowed to take their products to market themselves. ""the reform will allow farmers to "develop mechanisms to supply tourist entities and take better advantage of the potential of all forms of local means of production".

It's high time Americans started learning to live with our neighbors and focused on developing valuable relationships within our own continent. The present situation with Cuba is moronic. They are not an economic threat to us nor have they been a military threat for about 50 years. We need to focus our efforts on getting our own house in order, including helping our neighbors like Mexico, Cuba and Haiti become viable trade partners and safe tourism destinations. I'm hoping that if our nation becomes more energy self-sufficient we can start focusing on building relationships and spend less effort policing the world.

You do know people are paid MONEY to recycle products that have value?

This is as naive assumption, as the belief that the money can replace the resources of energy and raw materials. Even the gold - which is most valuable and most recycled resource - is wasted in large quantities every year. You cannot beat the entropy with entropy: the effective recycling would require another energetic and material resources. And of course, the money which are paid to recycling will be missing somewhere else. The only solution is to use a new technology, like the cold fusion.

Until you build a Dyson's Sphere around the sun and still need more energy, what's there to worry about?

Ask your mate Mitt Romney. He and his capitalist mates want extra profit so they close down US plant and offshore the jobs/refining so they can make more profit just importing. Where have you been? That is what Bain Capital (ism) Modus Operandi was all about. One-eyed and 'conveniently forgetful', hey? Ask Romney to release the detailed Tax returns for his Bain Capital (ism) years and you will see why. He hasn't released them because they will answer all your questions. That's what you and Mitt are afraid of, isn't it, or he would have released them by now. Conmen are conning you again, and you fall for it every time. Gullible....or just one-eyed shill for that crowd? Mate, it's no use discussing anything with you if you are so blind to the facts and just keep posting your Repub/conserve 'unfettered capitalism' shill spiel. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel". (Mark Twain?). Goodbye. :)